JRSM > Volume 99, Number 11 > Pp. 545

This Article Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rovere, M. G. Q. d. Articles by Thornton, M. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Letters

Good doctors: safer patients—the Chief Medical Officer's prescription for regulating doctors

Mr Guidubaldo Querci della Rovere Dr Margaret McCartney   Mrs Hazel Thornton

E-mail: hazelcagct{at}keme.co.uk

‘Medical professionalism signifies a set of values, behaviours and relationships that underpins the trust the public has in doctors.’ was the definition offered in the Report of the Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians. Trust in doctors remains high, higher than in politicians or civil servants.¹

The practice of medicine, centring on the unique doctor-patient relationship, cannot be conducted on the same lines as a business enterprise, such as an airline, with regulation by an elected Board of Directors, as advocated by Sir Donald Irvine² and Sir Liam Donaldson.³ Professionalism is the basis of medicine's contract with society,⁴ to whom it should be responsible, individually and a whole. As has been reported in the national press,⁵ the General Medical Council (GMC) has already moved to proposing independent regulation through balanced composition of its regulatory council, with no one group having an inbuilt majority. This inevitable and necessary change will be uncomfortable for some doctors. It is, however, far preferable to Sir Liam's and Sir Donald's proposals, which would diminish doctors, create mistrust, and not be in the best interests of patients. This threat to medical professionalism must be resisted at all costs, as the supportive comments of many of the signatories to our petition (http://www.gopetition.com/online/9679.html) indicate.

Footnotes

Competing interests None declared.

REFERENCES

1. Hayward B, Mortimer E, Brunwin T, for The Committee on Standards in Public Life. Survey of Public Attitudes Towards Conduct in Public Life. London: BMRB Social Research, 2004

2. Irvine D. Good doctors: safer patients—the Chief Medical Officer's prescription for regulating doctors. J Roy Soc Med 2006;99:430 -1[Free Full Text]

3. Cole A. England to consider shake-up of medical regulation. BMJ2006; 333:163[Free Full Text]

4. Medical Professionalism Project. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physicians' charter. Lancet2002; 359:520 -2[CrossRef][Medline]

5. Timmins N. Doctors' disciplinary body seeks new regime. Financial Times 2006

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This Article Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rovere, M. G. Q. d. Articles by Thornton, M. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?